Inability To Trace Beneficiaries Cannot Defeat Or Postpone Compensation Disbursal: Supreme Court Directs High Court Suo Motu Proceedings Disability Pension | Mere Manifestation Of Disease During Military Service Without Causal Connection Is Not Sufficient For Entitlement: Supreme Court Prevention Of Corruption Act | Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Without Proof Of Demand Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Appointment Contrary To Statutory Requirements And Advertisement Terms Amounts To Fraud On Public: Supreme Court IT Act | Once Settlement Commission Admits Application Under Section 245C, Assessing Officer Loses Jurisdiction To Reopen Assessment Under Section 148: Supreme Court NDPS Act | Prosecution Must Establish Unbroken Chain Of Custody For Samples, Failure To Comply With Section 52-A Renders FSL Report Inadmissible: Supreme Court Section 180 BNSS | Investigating Officers Must Adopt Transparent Practices; DGP Should Consider Making Audio-Video Recording Of Witness Statements Mandatory: Allahabad High Court Rowdy Sheet Cannot Be Opened In A Mechanical Manner Based On Mere Pendency Of Two Criminal Cases: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Surname Protection Under Section 35 Trade Marks Act Not Restricted To Natural Persons': Bombay High Court Allows Corporate Body To Use Family Name Circumstantial Evidence | Prosecution Must Prove Connectivity Between Accused And Crime, Mere 'Last Seen' Theory Insufficient: Calcutta High Court Section 482 BNSS | Criminal Prosecution Against Company Directors Cannot Be Quashed When Investigation Reveals Active Role Beyond Mere Designation: Delhi High Court Cannot Be Permitted To Patch Up Weak Points: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Belated Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Plea Order XXI Rule 90 CPC | Burden To Prove Material Irregularity Or Fraud In Court Auction Sale Lies Upon Judgment Debtor: Kerala High Court Departmental Instructions Not Being Mandatory, Non-Compliance Does Not Vitiate Enquiry If Guilt Is Proved By Other Cogent Evidence: Delhi High Court Doctrine Of Res Gestae | Hearsay Evidence Can Be Admissible If Statement Is Spontaneous And Contemporaneous With The Occurrence: Madras High Court Relatives Cannot Be Roped Into Matrimonial Disputes On The Basis Of Omnibus Allegations: Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Discharge Victim In Private Complaint Case Entitled To File Appeal Against Acquittal Before Sessions Court U/S 372 CrPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Remand, Entitles Accused To Bail: Orissa High Court Section 18 Limitation Act | Acknowledgement Of Loan In Promissory Note Extends Period Of Limitation For Entire Debt: Delhi High Court Section 138 NI Act | Existence Of Defence Founded On Disputed Facts Cannot Be Ground To Scuttle Cheque Bounce Prosecution At Inception: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Tribunal Cannot Entertain A Direct Challenge As Against The Validity Of The Certificate: Kerala High Court Upholds Jurisdictional Limitation on CAT

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Kerala, presided by Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen, delivered a significant judgment today in O.P.(CAT) No. 83 of 2016, reaffirming the Central Administrative Tribunal’s (CAT) decision that questioned the jurisdictional authority in examining the genuineness of educational qualifications certified by statutory bodies.

When a Statutory Council Accords Registration, It Has To Be Presumed That All Acts Have Been Done In Compliance With The Rules

Legal Framework and Preliminary Facts:

The core legal question in this petition was whether the CAT could adjudicate on the authenticity of the qualifications required for the post of Staff Nurse under the Lakshadweep Administration. The qualifications in question were registrations given by the Kerala Nurses and Midwives Council and the Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council, which are statutory bodies. The dispute emerged over the selection of respondents 3 and 4 based on allegedly inauthentic certificates.

Detailed Court Assessment:

Jurisdiction and Authority of CAT: The High Court pointed out that the CAT correctly dismissed the challenge on its jurisdiction, as Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 limits its purview. The court noted, “The Tribunal cannot entertain a direct challenge against the validity of the certificates issued by statutory councils as it does not fall within the jurisdiction, powers, and authority under the Act.”

Presumption of Regularity: The judgment emphasized that when a statutory council like the Kerala Nurses and Midwives Council or the Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council issues a registration, it must be presumed that all procedures align with the governing rules. Justice Mustaque highlighted, “As rightly noted by the Tribunal, it cannot entertain a direct challenge as against the validity of the certificate; such a dispute will not fall within the jurisdiction.”

Distinction in Challenges: The High Court further delineated between direct and collateral challenges to the qualifications in recruitment processes. The current case constituted a direct challenge, which was outside the scope of the CAT’s jurisdiction as it pertained directly to the issuance of certificates by the councils rather than the recruitment process itself.

Submission of Qualifications: Addressing another challenge about the submission of qualifications past the notified cutoff date, the court found no violations, as the notification only required copies attached with the application and not the originals.

Decision: Upholding the decision of the Tribunal, the High Court dismissed the original petition, confirming that the genuineness of the certificates issued by statutory authorities could not be directly challenged in the CAT.

Date of Decision: February 21, 2024.

FayazKhan H.K. & Anr. Vs. The Director of Medical & Health Services, Kavaratti & Ors.,

Latest Legal News